Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Reckless Driving Death | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’ve been charged with a serious crime, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale law office is free. Attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for nearly two decades. He focuses his practice on criminal defense and handles a wide range of cases. This includes cases involving the death of a person.
In 2010, the Oakland court criminal appeals addressed the case for the defendant was involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident. The defendant was driving with a suspended license. The appellate court concluded that because the defendant had no legal right to be behind the wheel the time, he was acting driving without a license was causally related to the death. Thus, a supportive charge of first-degree misdemeanor manslaughter. The folks in the case were on causation, that being a causal connection between the fence conduct in the death. This an essential requirement for all homicides. But in reaching its conclusion, the appellate court observed that first cream manslaughter statutes place no express limitations will, the misdemeanor can serve as a predicate for misdemeanor manslaughter.
Attempting to sort out the interplay between statutes, there are some fundamental rules. The court must interpret laws, not revise them. The ultimate goal statutory construction is to ascertain the intention of the legislature. To reach that goal, the appellate court may look to each person the statute in question. It may also look to other statutes on the same or related subjects. It also looks at the wrongs and evils that the statute seeks to remedy. Additionally, natural or absurd consequences of any particular interpretation will be avoided.
Questions be arise when to statutes, however plainly worded, peer to cover the same or similar conduct. Is no simple rule of statutory construction require that particular pattern of criminal conduct shall only be addressed by one particular criminal provision. The legislature has the authority to grant prosecutor’s discretion and what charges to bring based on the circumstances of the case. Felony recognizes can lead to absurd results. The defendant’s conduct in the previous case was no is dangerous to human life and the defendant’s conduct in another case. But for driving a very dangerous pizza the time of the homicides. However, they faced drastically different punishments this was because the prosecutor’s inability or neglected to pick the right kind of misdemeanor as the predicate for the misdemeanor manslaughter charge.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the prosecution retains broad discretion as to whether, when, and how to prosecute crimes. The disc attorney asked her the discretion committed to him for the public good. One of his most important functions that is to select out of what the law permits the charges which will bring against an offender. Or defendant’s conduct is hardly covered by more than one criminal provision, the choices a matter within the prosecutor’s discretion. The exceptions that he must be bound by the constitutional requirement the decision not be may on it impermissible standard such as race or religion. For example, prosecutor has the power to veto the diverse of the case to drug court program. The prosecutor’s election between the first-degree manslaughter and second degree manslaughter.
The appellate court has often held that the defendant may violate one or more statute in its within the discretion of the disc attorney to determine which statute he will charge. As between specific statutes prescribing different penalties for any offense, the state may elect to try and offender are either statute. In 1979 case the defendant was charged with felony crime involving obscene material. The crime carried a punishment of up to 15 years in prison. On appeal from her conviction, she argued that she should been charged under different in more recent statute. She said is one which post the same topic criminal conduct is a misdemeanor. In rejected his claim, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found Supreme Court’s analysis of the United States vs. bachelor to be instructive.
Addition the case were to federal laws, both which criminals the defendant’s possession of a firearm, but which carried substantial different ranges the punishment. The provision with more lenient punishment range was enacted asked. The U. S. Supreme Court unanimously held that multiple criminal statutes which address the same or overlapping conduct did not violate due process or equal protection rights. The court said no problem in the fact that the prosecutor choose which statute applies the law is selection does not discriminate against any class of defendants. Also, the court did not find anything unconstitutionally vague about the overlapping provisions. The fact that a particular conduct may violate both laws does not detract from the notice afforded by each.
In the statute created uncertainty as to which I may be charged, they were similar in the fact that the author is various alternative punishments. Slows overlapping criminal provisions clearly defined, prohibited in the punishment authorize, the notice requirements of due process clause are satisfied. As far as prosecutorial discretion goes, the court concluded that the power to elect among the alternatives the prosecution punishment is no broader than the authority prosecutors routinely exercise and forcing the criminal laws.
Oklahoma is first-degree misdemeanor manslaughter statute does not distinguish among the type or the category misdemeanor in which a charge can be predicted. In holding that driving while impaired could serve as a basis for misdemeanor manslaughter charge, the court observes of this is proper. The statute is plain and places no limitations on the type of misdemeanors which can serve as a predicate for first-degree manslaughter. Even though the negligent homicide statute speaks specifically to motor vehicle deaths, the specs do not require different result. The chronology of indictment is not binding.
Before concluding that latter statute supersedes are repealed by application in early one, the appellate court must first conclude that they are contradictory to one another in some respect. Repealed by location be found only when to statutes are so inconsistent that they may not both stand. A statute may be repelled by application only if there are irreconcilable conflicts between the statutes. If such a conflict exists, the latter statute modifies the earlier, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.